As I mentioned last week, the Husband and I just got back from a nice long holiday abroad.

So, while were off to sites like this:

…what did Moses and Alma do while we were away?

Well, they both went to hang out with friends.

Moses went to hang out with Crosby and Dion and their family (who you’ve seen here before many times).

Moses and his temporary pack

Evidently Moses got up to a bit of mischief – the stick chewer got his jowls on a wooden alphabet block and gnawed it beyond recognition. Not sure which letter, but we know who’s responsible for any potential spelling setbacks.

Who, us?

Trying to keep up with the faster pups

Alma had her time split between two places.

First she was off to hang out with Eddy.

Alma & Eddy

It was at Eddy’s house that Alma managed to get her paws on dinner, snagging a ribeye off the counter!

“Sorry I stole your dinner”

Then she was off to stay with her buddy Juniper (who’s also made appearances here before), where, like Moses, she also made BFFs with a toddler, earning herself the name “Malma” and taking a dip in the kiddie pool.

Alma & Juniper

Other than the odd bit of mischief, I’ve been assured they were both good houseguests. After so much excitement, I’m sure Moses and Alma are both finding the usual routine kind of boring.

But it’s definitely nice having such great places for Moses and Alma to stay when we go away – we missed them, but it was so nice to not have to stress about their wellbeing!

This post is part of the Mischief Monday blog hop – to see what everyone else has been up to, visit Snoopy’s Dog Blog here, My Brown Newfies here, or Alfie’s Blog here.

Well, I suppose I should begin by explaining my long absence for the blogosphere (I am so behind on blog reading and am unlikely to catch up). But there’s a good excuse, I promise: the Husband and I went off to western Europe for 24 days.

And it was awesome! We had so much fun and went to so many cool places!

But I didn’t completely forget about the Soapbox while I was away and have some travels to share.

For example, did you know there’s a dog park right next to the Leaning Tower of Pisa?

Me neither!

I don’t know if it’s an official dog park, but there were quite a few pups gathered there having a great time.

Perhaps it’s the Capitoline Wolf sculpture that welcomes them?

It depicts the legend of Romulus and Remus (sons of Mars), who were rescued by a she-wolf after being cast into the Tiber River. They were then raised by a shepherd, grew to overthrow their great uncle (as prophesied, hence the banishment in the first place), and eventually established the city of Rome. (Later Romulus kills his brother, often taken to represent the city’s history of conflict.)

This little dude was chewing on a stick solo nearby, in front of the Pisa Baptistry

So, now that I’m back, what’d I miss?!

This post is part of the Thursday Barks & Bytes Blog Hop, hosted by 2 Brown Dawgs and Heart Like a Dog. Go pay a visit to the hosts and check out other hop participants.

As many of us dog owners are aware, travelling anywhere with your dog always means an advance and thorough check through the fine print in the policies of any “pet friendly” establishment on the agenda. Unfortunately, it is not enough to simply make a note of whether dogs are allowed because “pet friendly” is actually a misleading term. Many popular hotels tout themselves as “pet friendly”, but as soon as you make a detailed inquiry, you find out this only applies to dogs who weigh under 100, 50 or even 20 pounds. While this means your average Chihuahua is free to roam the country at will with its owners, that leaves a lot of dogs and their owners out in the cold. I have personally had encounters in “pet friendly” stores telling me that while yes, they do allow dogs, they do not allow dogs as big as mine.

First, let’s look at some numbers. According to a Canadian Animal Health Institute 2007 release, approximately 35% of Canadian households have at least one pet dog, and the dog population in Canada is estimated to be upwards of 5.9 million in the country. Below the border, they estimate that there are 61 million pet dogs in the United States, with approximately 36% of households owning at least one dog.

There are about 15 breeds of dogs generally considered to be “giant breed”, which is often determined by weight: an average “giant” dog weighs 100 pounds or more, (for both male and female). The list often includes, but is not limited to, breeds such as the Leonberger, Greater Swiss Mountain Dog, Irish Wolfhound, Great Dane, Newfoundland, and English Mastiff.

In addition, there are upwards of 57 breeds considered to be “large breed” dogs, with the weight standard generally sitting at 50-100 pounds. Large breed dogs include the Malamute, Akita, Old English Sheepdog, Airedale Terrier, Bloodhound, Vizsla, Bernese Mountain Dog, German Shepherd, Chow Chow, Boxer, Rottweiler, and most retrievers, including the Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever and Flat Coat Retriever.

Noting that the Canadian Kennel Club currently recognises 175 different dog breeds, this means that large or giant breed dogs account for about 41% of registered dog breeds. How that number translates to the overall dog population, frankly I don’t know, but also take into account that, according to Canada’s Guide to Dogs, the “large breed” Labrador Retriever is the most popular dog by ownership in Canada. Similar reports come from the United States, with the American Kennel Club stating that there are over twice as many Labrador Retrievers registered in the US as the next most popular breed by ownership.

Secondly, and before moving on, I stress I am not writing to argue that dogs should be allowed to go everywhere people are. While that would be nice, there are some places where dogs shouldn’t be or aren’t allowed to be (food establishments, places selling prescription drugs), and any place that has a “No Dogs” sign posted should be respected. I also acknowledge that not all dogs are trained and some dog owners are dunces. These people and their dogs are the folks who ruin dog-accompanied shopping and travel privileges for the rest of us and it will always be that way. And for those of us heading out with our average, non-service canine companions, we should be respectable to those around us, setting a good example and making a good impression. Don’t take your dog into a store if he is excessively wet, muddy, or possibly drooly – doing so makes you one of the aforementioned dunces, I’m afraid. Ensuring your dog can behave itself should go without saying. And always remember that even though it is hard to believe, some people are afraid of dogs, or actually just don’t like them, so yours should be able to keep to its own personal space while accompanying you out in public.

That aside, I am writing to address size-based discrimination found amongst the various “dog friendly” environments already in place, whether it be a resort, hotel, condominium complex, retail store, or public park or other attraction. Small dogs often find themselves with access privileges that their larger counterparts are denied.

But why is this? Is there something fundamentally unruly about the large and giant breed dogs? Certainly not. A quick look into the disposition of any large breed, from a Great Dane to a Mastiff, will no doubt result in most of them making a claim to the title “Gentle Giant”. In fact, the larger breeds such as Newfoundlands, Saint Bernards, and the aforementioned are generally known for their low-energy, calm dispositions. Of course, each individual dog is different, and size and breed assumptions are kind of what got us in the mess in the first place. Sure, you absolutely can come across an exuberant Great Dane, even though he weighs over 120 pounds. Size does not guarantee lethargy, but on the whole, the giant breeds at least seem to exert less energy than your average small dog (think terriers, Chihuahuas, Pomeranians, Beagles, etc.).

So why do proprietors discriminate on size alone? Sure, big dogs are, well, bigger. They eat more and therefore poop more. They have more fur, so if they’re a shedding type of dog, they will shed more. But these should be concerns of potential dog owners who are going to have the dog living in their homes every day, because they have to clean up after it. These things aren’t pressing issues for the fifteen minute store visit, or even for a brief overnight stay at a hotel. And as far as size restrictions go for residential buildings, those concerns remain nil if you have a responsible and hygienic tenant who cleans up after his or her dog. Speaking from personal experience as a landlord, dogs of all sizes are equally hard on a residence and are actually no worse than cats.

Additionally, hotels often have their own remedies for these kinds of cleaning and repair concerns. Most “pet friendly” accommodations have designated pet-rooms or put those travelling with pets in smoking rooms. And nearly every hotel with a “pet friendly” policy also has an extra cost associated with it, whether it be a one-time charge or a per-night fee, with said cost ranging from $10-30 night or $50+ per stay. There are also policies in place so guests do not leave dogs in the rooms unsupervised, ideally allowing for minimal canine-related destruction or disruption. Yet, even with these stipulations and cautionary measures, size restrictions are still present and common.

Is it that big dogs are more destructive? Well, not necessarily. Any untrained, under-exercised dog is going to be destructive, regardless of size. If you want to guarantee the condition of your property, an exercise and training requirement for all dogs is more appropriate. Yes, there are many excellent small dog owners out there, but there are many awful ones, too. Those are the folks who think they don’t need to train their small dog because they can just “pick him up” when he’s being bad, and figure that because they’re small, they don’t need to be exercised properly. And why do these owners still get the full privileges of the “pet friendly” establishments, but those of us with well-mannered large dogs remain left out?

Or better yet, let’s use the example of a hotel that has a 50lb weight limit in its pet policy. How is it that my dog, when he was a puppy and met that criteria, but was also not yet fully housebroken, would have been allowed to stay there, but now that he is a mature adult dog, albeit much larger, he’s banned? Does that make sense to anyone?

Moses, when he qualified as a "medium sized dog".

I understand that hotels and stores and other “pet friendly” locations want to ensure the dogs they allow are well-mannered and not a nuisance to other guests. But size is no way to determine that and size restrictions, just like breed-specific restrictions, miss the point entirely. Judging a dog based on its size or breed is no way to determine temperament or level of training or socialization.

Instead, I call for a complete revocation of these ridiculous size-related restrictions. And no, this won’t mean your next shopping trip or out of town stay is going to be a doggy circus; there still needs to be some standard or form or regulation, and effective policies are already often in place. Requiring all dogs to be supervised and on-leash when out in public is completely reasonable. Continue charging your extra fees, if it means that much to you, and make no qualms about asking an unruly or noisy dog to leave. Hold owners completely responsible for the behaviour of their dogs. Perhaps offer incentives for trained dogs, asking for accreditations such as Canine Good Neighbour / Good Citizen, which can only serve to encourage people to seek formal training when they normally may not.

And when looking at the size of the population of dog owners, and the population of big dog owners specifically, it doesn’t make much sense to exclude these folks and their beloved pets from travel or activities. Businesses who open their doors to dogs of all sizes gain a market that will remain loyal and recommend their friends.

Sure, it’s natural to have preferences. Owners of big dogs likely prefer them – guilty as charged. And owners of small dogs probably feel that a small dog is the best choice for them, if not a better choice in general. But my complaint arises when restrictions are put in place based on these arbitrary preferences. It is actually like disregarding the contents of a book because you don’t like the colour of the cover, and I believe long ago we were all told not to do that. Not to mention, often size discriminations are a way to mask breed-specific discriminations, but for more on that I invite you to read my post “To Ban the Breed?”